… the author was specifically referring to the underhand strategy employed
by certain secular groups, of advancing their atheistic/humanistic agenda by using
the testimony of Christian evolutionists [the ‘useful idiots], whose Christian
views they nevertheless strongly disagree with—and even privately oppose.

As a lifelong Christian who is nonetheless considered by you and your organization
to be a ‘useful idiot,’ I feel compelled to comment on this article.
The fact that you consider me, as a scientist who accepts biological evolution,
to be in the same camp as vocal atheists speaks volumes about your view of scripture.
I think that here is the crux of the matter. Your organization denigrates scientific
knowledge gained by ‘fallible men;’ and contrasts it with a literal
(or ‘plain meaning’) reading of scripture. But consider this: deny it
though you might, interpretation of scripture is at least as subject to human fallibility
as is scientific observation. This is simple to demonstrate; CMI and those of like
mind have an interpretation of scripture that you hold to be without error. Other
groups have diametrically-opposed views, which they also defend as being without
error. In fact, there is a vast spectrum of conflicting views that all claim to
be without error. The inescapable conclusion is that some or all of these interpretations
must necessarily be in error. Yet you have determined that your position alone is
the correct one. This is a bit (?) presumptuous.
Your likely response will probably be yet another recitation of your litany of carefully-compiled
reasons why you are right and all others are wrong. I won’t try to argue you
out of this mindset because it can’t be done, but please to try to accept
that you just might be mistaken. And please also try to modify your notion that
Christians who disagree with your approach are no better than ‘useful idiots’
of Satan.

Philip and Jonathan respond:

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your e-mail. You wrote:

As a lifelong Christian who is nonetheless considered by you and your organization
to be a ‘useful idiot,’ I feel compelled to comment on this article.

Given that you are one of our most frequent critics, one must ask how your professed
Christianity differs in any practical way from atheism on the subject of
origins. Readers can check some other public correspondence:

The fact that you consider me, as a scientist who accepts biological evolution,
to be in the same camp as vocal atheists speaks volumes about your view of scripture.

In the context of that article, the author was specifically referring to the underhand
strategy employed by certain secular groups, of advancing their atheistic/humanistic
agenda by using the testimony of Christian evolutionists, whose Christian views
they nevertheless strongly disagree with—and even privately oppose. This was
not name-calling. Rather, as pointed out in the article itself (with a reference
to its likely historical precedent), “the phrase ‘useful idiot’
refers to the person who unwittingly advances a cause whose real aim is to fatally
undermine their own cause.” One of the possibly apocryphal stories
goes like this:

“Beset by shortages and civil war at home, Lenin presided over one famous
Kremlin meeting during which he renewed his assurances that capitalism was on its
last legs. ‘We will hang all the capitalists,’ Lenin pledged. His comrade
Martov bitterly answered: ‘Under our great new socialist government, we couldn’t
even find enough rope to hang them!’ Lenin, ever humorless, responded: ‘When
I get ready to hang the capitalists, those useful idiots will sell me the rope—on
credit.’”

In other words, “idiot” does not refer to people’s IQ, but their
naivety in allowing themselves to be used in such a manner—the phrase does
not imply that those referred to in the David Anderson’s article
(or you) are “in the same camp as vocal atheists” at all; just that
you aid and abet them in their campaign to root out biblical Christianity.

I think that here is the crux of the matter. Your organization denigrates scientific
knowledge gained by ‘fallible men;’

Also, CMI employs and draws on the knowledge of
many scientists (including many with PhDs) with qualifications and professional
experience in such fields as geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, marine biology,
molecular biology, genetics, engineering, physical chemistry, nuclear physics and
atmospheric science. Even a cursory browsing of this website would show that we
make a distinction between experimental/operational scientific enquiry and investigating
the timing and details of origins. One cannot experiment on one-off events
that happened in the deep recesses of history and which (in the evolutionary view
at least) had no human observers—such origins science is necessarily
subjective and the investigator’s own worldview influences the gathering of
data and its interpretation.

and contrasts it with a literal (or ‘plain meaning’) reading of scripture.
But consider this: deny it though you might, interpretation of scripture is at least
as subject to human fallibility as is scientific observation. This is simple to
demonstrate; CMI and those of like mind have an interpretation of scripture that
you hold to be without error.

In view of our earlier comments, we do not set empirically-derived or self-evident
scientific facts in opposition to the grammatico-historical reading of the early
chapters of Genesis. Rather, the latter framework of origins and early earth history
provides an alternative worldview and thus a different explanatory filter for understanding
and interpreting scientific data, whether rocks, fossils, DNA sequences or biotic
diversity, for example. Yes, Scripture is also interpreted by fallible human beings—it
is the Bible itself that we hold to be infallible and
without error in its original autographs, not the interpretations of the
readers. However, this does not mean that each person’s ‘interpretation’
is as valid as another’s (see Is all interpretation
created equal?)! But it is simply not good enough to raise such postmodernist
arguments, as our book Refuting Compromise
points out:

Is biblical interpretation infallible, and does it matter?

Some would dismiss the superiority of Scripture over ‘science’ by asserting
that while God’s Word is infallible, human interpretations are not. From this,
they assert that it’s not God’s Word vs man’s fallible interpretations
of nature, but man’s fallible interpretation of the Bible vs man’s fallible
interpretation of nature. More colloquially, they might say of a young-earth creationist
analysis of Scripture, ‘That’s just your interpretation.’

This is fallacious reasoning and borders on postmodernism, where objective truth
is denied. One does not need to be an infallible interpreter to be able to interpret
the meanings of most passages accurately, any more than one needs to be
an infallible mathematician to know that 1+1=2. The accuracy of interpretation of
Scripture is determined by how it matches the intended meaning of the author. This
is determined by rules of grammar and historical and literary context. Those who
wish to deny a particular interpretation of Genesis need to find a basis in the
biblical text from the application of these rules; an appeal to general human fallibility
is simply not sufficient.

It’s also worth noting that such post-modernist claims are self-refuting.
When a post-modernist writes ‘it is impossible to know 100% how to correctly
interpret a piece of writing’, he certainly intends that people correctly
interpret this particular piece of his own writing. But he has no basis
for objecting when an opponent throws his post-modernism back at him and decides
to ‘interpret’ that statement as meaning, ‘A piece of writing
has an objective meaning which is usually possible to interpret correctly.’

Another critic, a medical doctor, attacked our “unquestioning devotion to
a single, rigid interpretation of scripture.” We
responded:

But this is absurd. A single, rigid (as you put it) interpretation is essential
for communication. Perhaps as an MD, when you prescribe 30 units of insulin for
a diabetic, it would be OK for him not to hold to a single, rigid interpretation
of your prescription. Instead, should he be free to interpret insulin as ibuprofen,
or 30 units as 3,000 units?

Scripture is its own authority, and the
rule of thumb used by conservative (as opposed to liberal) scholars in hermeneutics
is to let the text speak and to search out the whole ‘counsel
of God’, thus allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

In fact, there is a vast spectrum of conflicting views that all claim to be without
error. The inescapable conclusion is that some or all of these interpretations must
necessarily be in error.

But it doesn’t follow that there is no correct interpretation. Does the existence
of counterfeit money prove that no real money exists?

Yet you have determined that your position alone is the correct one. This is a bit
(?) presumptuous.

Granted, if ‘our position’ was simply a matter of opinion (ours versus
a sea of other opinions), this would be presumption. Respectfully, however, we put
it to you that Christians who line up their thinking on origins with that of the
Lord Jesus Christ are on solid ground, their one presumption being that the words
of Christ are authoritative and true—both His recorded words in the New Testament
and in fact the whole Bible, His being the logos or memra of
John 1. As discussed in
this article, Jesus unambiguously endorsed the Pentateuch (Genesis to
Deuteronomy) to be the writings of Moses:

So what was it that Moses wrote that was needed to clearly explain the
Gospel?1

It was the foundational account of the Creation (which New Testament writers attribute
to Jesus (e.g. John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2), the subsequent Fall of Adam, with
the entrance of sin and death into the human race, which explains the reason for
a substitutionary atonement for sin.

Believing that science, especially in the area of origins, is—for all its
explanatory power and benefits—ultimately a less-than-perfect enterprise (carried
out by fallible human beings), we believe it must bow the knee to Scripture.

The latter differences in interpretation arise from fundamentally distinct approaches
to the Bible. Believing that science, especially in the area of origins, is—for
all its explanatory power and benefits—ultimately a less-than-perfect enterprise
(carried out by fallible human beings), we believe it must bow the knee to Scripture.
This ministerial approach to human reasoning is in stark contrast to the
magisterial view which starts with our potentially flawed, scientific reasoning
(external to the Bible) and dictates (like a magistrate) how Scripture is to be
interpreted—as an
earlier response to you explained, and is
discussed in depth. Of course, even among those who reason from a ministerial
point of view, there are variations in interpretation—but it is axiomatic
for all within this category that Scripture is the ultimate authority.

Your likely response will probably be yet another recitation of your litany of carefully-compiled
reasons why you are right and all others are wrong. I won’t try to argue you
out of this mindset because it can’t be done, but please to try to accept
that you just might be mistaken. And please also try to modify your notion that
Christians who disagree with your approach are no better than ‘useful idiots’
of Satan.

Our reasoning is not a mere “litany” of rehearsed arguments, and we
trust we have sufficiently demonstrated this to be the case. While the term “mindset”
may be used as a synonym of “worldview”, it also carries the connotation
(as you indicate) of being unwilling to listen to reasoned argument and to change
one’s mind in the face of a coherent falsification of one’s cherished
views. In the experience of both of us, this typifies many (not all) evolutionists
that we have engaged with. We can respectfully disagree with “your approach”
without believing you are intentionally serving Satan—something that was never
even vaguely hinted at in the article, much less stated.

References

Manna from heaven? Because this site and the information it contains is free, you might think so. However, lots of hard work went into producing it. Your gifts help to produce this ‘manna’ for others. Support this site

Comments closed

Readers’ comments

Pete C.,Australia

WOW, thank you very much for such an extensive and thorough reply. After reading some of the associated links and the article on hand, I have been led to understand more deeply the importance of the ministry of CMI. Your responses were very tactful, precise and illuminating.

I saw for the very first time that if a Christian wants to reinterpret the creation story in Genesis that it must be based the validity of the text & not based the acceptance of man’s fallible imperfect science.

Bruce B.,UK

Richard M.’s sense of offence at being called a ‘useful idiot’ seems to have allowed him to unfairly accuse CMI of being anti-science and supporting bigoted religiosity. This is not my experience of CMI. To my mind for open, objective, authoritative examination of evidence and theological argument, you can’t be bettered.

Am I not correct in recalling that Richard Dawkins once labelled Christians who believed evolution ‘useful idiots’?

Richard M. perhaps needs to reflect on the thought that, if the Bible is not God’s inerrant word, we might as well all pack up and go home. Logically, if it isn’t inerrant, we then have to rely on man’s imperfect interpretations—and which one would we choose?

We are required by our Lord Jesus to live our Christian life in faith. How can you have faith in something you don’t believe to be perfect or that requires human interpretation?

The attitudes he complains of are precisely the ones I encountered yesterday from a friend whom I haven’t seen for many years. He claims to be a Christian, and certainly has a great many of the attributes, but holds to the ‘theory’ of evolution and simply refuses to consider any other point of view. This lack of consideration extended to a gentle mocking of those ‘foolish’ enough to believe that the Bible is inerrant.

As Christians, I don’t believe that we have any choice other than to accept the inerrancy of God’s word and to ask the Holy Spirit for wisdom and understanding as we study it. Please continue to grow in your wonderful ministry covered by God’s blessing.

Mike W.,UK

Many in the church hold to theistic evolution and dismiss creationism saying that creation-evolution is a side issue. What’s interesting here is that Richard M. wishes to make a main issue out of it. But why is that? Richard Dawkins has spent forty years writing books, trying to convince others and him that nature made itself, whilst he admits it looks designed. Perhaps it’s the same here, as Richard is trying to convince himself that the Bible is true or not, by testing CMI? For whatever reason, leaving out Genesis is like leaving out half the Gospel and is one of the reasons why people perceive the Bible to be irrelevant.

Wayne T.,Australia

Another curious attack by someone who doesn’t seem aware of the irony in his argument. In any discipline, we make assumptions as to authority. In Christianity, that authority is God, and we accept His Word in the Bible. We can test it - historically, experientially, and even at times scientifically. That we do not all agree on all points is evidence of human fallibility, just as it is in science. Not all science is authoritative, particularly that not capable of being subjected to the scientific method. As the very fundamentals of evolution are not testable, they have no authority. For a Christian, the choice then is between a God whom we can trust, or fallible human endeavour, unfounded assumptions, and highly debatable science. I don’t understand why some Christians think that they have an option.

Jason D.,United States

It is interesting to note that when Richard M. states, “Your organization denigrates scientific knowledge gained by ‘fallible men;’ and contrasts it with a literal (or ‘plain meaning’) reading of scripture. But consider this: deny it though you might, interpretation of scripture is at least as subject to human fallibility as is scientific observation.”, he completely fails to understand that by any minute stretch of faith or even imagination that God is powerful enough to keep His Word intact through the millenia (to silence those that harp on supposed corruption of the text) and to ensure that those that He calls to preach are understanding His Word and communicating its meaning correctly. Theistic evolutionists seek the approval of men and want not to be thought of as fools by them, and as Scripture states, they have their reward. Instead, they are seen as fools by God. I wonder which they consider more important?

Joe F.,United States

Wow! “When a post-modernist writes ‘it is impossible to know 100% how to correctly interpret a piece of writing’, he certainly intends that people correctly interpret this particular piece of his own writing.” Why didn’t I ever notice this before? Most non-biblical interpretations use a form of this argument. The next time I deal with this question, I will use the response you gave—perhaps by interpreting what they just said to mean exactly the opposite of its plain meaning. Thank you very much, and keep up the great work!